I really think that is wrong, because it looks at the problem from a purely technical level.
We already know that in any given network, if the snoops cannot penetrate it technically, they will penetrate it socially. They do this either through setting up puppet accounts (very visible all over Facebook, if you know what to look for), and if that fails, they simply pay the most vulnerable member of the network, and/or blackmail them. This is documented spy operations 101, all over any history of CIA, NSA, etc., you care to read. In fact, it's old-fashioned spying, and the fetish for pursuing technological intelligence makes it easy to overlook the more pedestrian kind. if you put your personal information out there in any kind of centralized shared environment (I mean: an environment which others know about, has a name, etc., not necessarily technically centralized), and the snoops want to know about the network, they will find out about it. Look at how easily they penetrated very small networks of what one would have expected to be extremely like-minded, security-conscious and very small networks: WikiLeaks, LulzSec, using just these methods. There is nothing paranoid or conspiratorial about this observation. the danger is inherent in the network itself, and the solution is to craft laws and oversight that prevent organizations like NSA and CIA from thinking they have the authority to snoop. Otherwise, the snooping will occur, full stop. On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Eleanor Saitta <e...@dymaxion.org> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 2013.06.29 11.09, David Golumbia wrote: > > put more simply: the notion of a "privacy-preserving social > > network" is an inherent contradiction in terms. > > No, it's totally not. You can definitely build systems that allow > people to have meaningful levels of privacy toward anyone not in the > set of people with whom they choose to share data, while still letting > them reasonably efficiently speak with those they want to speak with. > I don't see why there's anything inherently contradictory in this. > > E. > > - -- > Ideas are my favorite toys. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) > > iF4EAREIAAYFAlHO+sQACgkQQwkE2RkM0wqCtQD/biQwnDGjxlqW6Ea/yZkYpbz2 > 6zTBdBW/zloHGzvZNAwA/1xbE7g2fXIa5EVLMoCR8t7q6MK7sXMeBpLaoY9rmgYF > =aa3t > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- David Golumbia dgolum...@gmail.com
-- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
